fodev.net

General => News and Announcements => Topic started by: AHS-9 on June 28, 2013, 07:53:13 am

Title: The Beginning
Post by: AHS-9 on June 28, 2013, 07:53:13 am

Welcome to fodev.net, the new international board for FOnline developers!

Why such forum? The FOnline scene always lacked a community website in English dedicated to developers. Informations about SDK are scarce and scattered - we see it as an obstacle in bringing more interest to FOnline. That's why former FOnline: 2238 devs decided to fill this gap by creating fodev.net. We would like it to be a place for all people focused on creative aspects of FOnline - place where you can discuss developing games, share ideas, ask questions, publish and share your work with others, announce new FOnline projects. A friendly hub for English speaking developers.

If you were registered on the FOnline: 2238 forum you don't have to create a new account - you can use the same login and password.

Of course fodev.net is not the only thing that we would like to do. We are still eager to create games. However, at least for now, we have decided to focus on something slightly different than a game - creating a new FOnline development kit with improved scripts and tools. Our aim is to create a better starting point for new projects. Only time will tell if we will be successful. This new endeavor is in very early stage and you can follow it on Github (https://github.com/rotators/fosdk). It's developed as open source.

Speaking about open source... we have one more news for you. To answer many requests of FOnline: 2238 fans, we have decided to release the source code of our game. We need to clean it up a bit and as soon as this work is done, everyone should be able to download the sources, start a FOnline: 2238 server or create their own projects based on it. This shouldn't take too long, so stay tuned!

i sence from the hostility to wards the name of Fonline 2 there will be A FO:2238 2

It's just that the name is confusing and doesn't really tell what FOnline2 is, because "FOnline" is the cvet's engine project and the whole environment around it and they don't make the second version of it, more like second (better) version of FOnline:2238 server from what I have heard. But it's not our problem.

We have no intention to be hostile towards anyone, especially developers (it would be quite silly considering that we run forum dedicated to FOnline developers) :)

Title: Re: The Beginning
Post by: Lexx on June 28, 2013, 04:44:11 pm

Btw. in case someone doesn't know yet: http://fo2238.fodev.net/

Title: Re: The Beginning
Post by: hejmr on June 28, 2013, 08:40:50 pm

Good to see you decided to publish the 2238 source. Way to go! Also wish you good luck with your future plans, it's a saints' work.

Glad you managed to find agreement on releasing the sources, and thank you for deciding to carry on with the SDK based forums - I imagine it was quite difficult to abandon a project you'd all put so much into, and appreciate the effort of carrying things on in a positive way for the wider community. As said previously, I look forward to what any of you produce in future. Good luck!

p.s. Enjoy cleaning up the "Well, I never thought anyone ELSE would have to read it - I just kept writing more things until it sort of worked" areas of 2238. You have both my thanks and pity :)

Well basicly with mono integration anyone with enough skill in any .NET languages, heck even a kid (14/15 years old) fresh out of the 11th year (of the portuguêse school system) in programing could do that with java... you are asking for C# especially so I presume you know it well.

In my opinion I agree with the use of .NET languages, but the BASE sdk is of the Rotators choice, if i'm not mistaken every .NET language supported by mono is treated the same. So you can do one script in javascript other in Boo , another in C# , f# and so on after being compiled they are all the same...but of course its best for you to stick with one or two languages than having an application working with all .net xD

...we have decided to focus on something slightly different than a game - creating a new FOnline development kit with improved scripts and tools. Our aim is to create a better starting point for new projects...

Do you think you could give us some more info about the process of what you plan to do? For example:

Do you plan to implement everything from scratch?

If so do you plan to implement it in AS or C#?

Do you plan to do some changes in hardcoded part of the engine? And do you even plan to use CVET's engine or create a new one?

Do you think you could give us some more info about the process of what you plan to do? For example:

Do you plan to implement everything from scratch?

If so do you plan to implement it in AS or C#?

Do you plan to do some changes in hardcoded part of the engine? And do you even plan to use CVET's engine or create a new one?

Can we help?

Thanks. :)

No, it's always good to reuse, depends how far we want to go.

I'm now pushing C# exclusive, as it gives more possibilities and frees of interop burden. (If we choose C# only, it would even differ from what's currently in Server/mono, because many things could've been done differently if AS hadn't been taken into consideration.

Starting new engine would be too much of a task. We definitely would want customized one, however, we're struggling currently whether to decide that backward compatibility is worth it, or not.

I suppose so, but that damned process of early decisions is somewhat blocking such initiative.

I'm now pushing C# exclusive, as it gives more possibilities and frees of interop burden. (If we choose C# only, it would even differ from what's currently in Server/mono, because many things could've been done differently if AS hadn't been taken into consideration.

Starting new engine would be too much of a task. We definitely would want customized one, however, we're struggling currently whether to decide that backward compatibility is worth it, or not.

I suppose so, but that damned process of early decisions is somewhat blocking such initiative.

1. That's what I am asking - how far do you want to go? :)2. Thumbs up for that.3. From my point of view backward compatibility is not worth, if you would be forced not to introduce features that could be really helpful and better or pay for bad decisions made in the past. If you are trying to do better improved version of SDK, that should serve as a base for new projects, than screw backward compatibility and do it better. :)4. I guess, it is not some decisioning that community could help you with. Or is it?

1. That's what I am asking - how far do you want to go? :)2. Thumbs up for that.3. From my point of view backward compatibility is not worth, if you would be forced not to introduce features that could be really helpful and better or pay for bad decisions made in the past. If you are trying to do better improved version of SDK, that should serve as a base for new projects, than screw backward compatibility and do it better. :)4. I guess, it is not some decisioning that community could help you with. Or is it?

1. Depends on 4:)4. I guess community could state their needs for better SDK, but we're aware of many needs and limitations ourselves, we just need to somehow fit it into 'roadmap' picture, so we are deciding about "how", and not necesarily "what".

I guess lots of it should be exposed outside, to give people a chance to contribute, but also some things cannot be, due to the "closed" nature of engine. And things like choosing scripting runtime is definitely an engine thing, but once it's chosen, things like utility classes, frameworks are definitely open things.

Aside from engine changes, it would be great to have SDK repository which does not require any external content, which we cannot include (maste/critter datafiles). That means new interface, tiles, sceneries, sounds, roofs, items, and so on - and all that need to be enough to fill like 2 maps for demonstration purposes. That's a faaar future plan, a crazy one, but it would need a lot help from the community~